The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-04-09

lenged and unquestioned, the latter
body can now revoke the charter and
appropriate the proceeds of the prop
erty to such uses as the majority of
Congress may designate? If this be
possible, well may we, with all the
people of the Territories, ask: Are we
| living under government of law, or
are we and all our rights as freemen
subject only to the Whim and caprice
OF Congress?
The Supreme Court of the United
States, in 10 Howard, page 449, said !:
1.-THE power of Congress over the per-
| son and property of q citizen can never
| be mere discretionary power under
| our Constitution and form Of govern
| ment. The powers of the government
and the rights and privileges OF the
citizen are regulated and plainly de-
| fined by the Constitution. itself, and
| when 3 Territory becomes part of
the United States, the Federal
Government enters into possession
| in the character impressed upon
| it by those who created it.
| 1t enters upon it with its powers
over the citizen strictly defined and
limited by the Constitution from which
it derives its own existence, and by
virtue Of which alone it continues to
| exist as government and sovereignty.
1t has no power Of any kind beyond it,
| and it cannot when it enters Terri
tory of the United States put off its
character, and assume discretionary or
despotic powers which the ConStitu-
ton has denied 20 1t. It Cannot create
for itself new character separate
from the citizens of the United States,
/ q nd ba nUac RI them Un1 or
the provisions of the Constitution"
To appropriate the property OF a
private corporation by saying that
all beyond certain value shall
| escheat to the GeVernment is an act
| worthy of the dark ages when the right
OF the state TO such property was
maintained by feudal theories. In
latter days the more equitable doctrine
prevails, even " hen corporations are
dissolved for violation of law, that the
property of the defunct corporation
goes to the corporators.
As has been we'll said by the court ip
the case of Wilkinson VS.. Leland, q
Peters 65) in dealing with the question
of taking the property of one and Civ
ing it to another, without judicial in
quiry and by legislative enactment:
THAT government can scarcely be
deemed free, where the rights OF prop
erty are left solely dependent upon the
any restraint. The fundamental maxim
of all free governments seems to re-
require that the rights of personal
liberty and of private property should
be held sacred.
A different doctrine is utterly incon-
sistent with the great and fundamental
principles of q republican govern
ment and with the right of
the citizens to the free enjoyment
of their property lawfully acquired"
In case which was appealed to the
United States Supreme Court, (Terrett
VS.. Taylor, 8 Cranch,) which involved
church property, that the Legislature
of the State of Virginia had undertake
en- to take from the corporations hold
ing it and turn over TO trustees, as this
law attempts to do, Judge Story said:
"But the property was, in fact and in
ishionerS or acquired by benefactions
of private donors. The title thereto
was indefeasiblyvest in the churches,
or rather in their legal agents. twas
not in the power OF the crown to seize |
or assume it, nor of the Parliament |
itself to destroy the grants, unless by
the exercise of power the most arbi- !
trary, oppressive, and unjust, and en- |
dured only because it could not be re-
sisted. It was not forfeited, for the
churches had committed no offenSe. |
The dissolution of the regal govern !
ment 70 more destroyed the right TO |
possess or enjoy the property than it |
lid the right OF any'other corporation |
Or individual 70 ais or Its own proper
y. - We think our
selves standing upon the principles
Of natural justice, upon the fun
damental laws of every free gov
eminent, upon the spirit and letter
Of the Constitution of the United |
States, aud upon the decision of the
most respectable judicial tribunals, in
such doctrine"
It seems to plain men that this new
law, in its attempt to seize and dispose
Of our property, lawfully acquired, is
IA direct conflict with the provision OF
the Constitution which declares that
no person shall be deprived OF life,
liberty or property without due pro-
sess OF law" A well known writer he's
aid: They have first Of ali to remove d
Fery stubborn prejudice which has
oeen confirmed by immemoriai usage
bat what person honestly acquires
nd legally possesses is his own and
lot an0ther'S." Ii
Probably no portion of this law has
so much attention since itst :
'asSage as the section containing what /
5 known as the ''teSt oath" Tie
municipal election at Brigham City,
after the bill became law, t
nd the pressing necessity for a de q
ision on the part OF those who are
ligible TO vote in order that they might S
egister, forced this point in the law /
ITO immediate prominence, Our enc Y
lies have circulated the most afro n
lous falsehoods, accusing our people I
t reserting to perjury when by SO do b
lg they could shield themselves and +
lends from punishment; but none q
new better than they that in making
lese charges they were uttering de- I
berate untrHthS. The proof of their d
.lsity has been witnessed in the FEEDER n
Courts every day during the past d
lirty months, when Latter-day Saints b
ere being tried for taking care of and il
acknowledging their wives and chill q
rem, and refused to give the promise Il
hich the courts endeavored to extort ii
ON them under al assurance that if a
ley would only make lt-which they q,
ere told they might easily do-they a
leuld be permitted to go unpublished. S
L H..